Orissa

Jajapur

CC/92/2017

Golakh Bihari Swain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Andhra Bank,Jajpur Road Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Badri Narayan Panda

28 May 2018

ORDER

        IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                     

                                              Dated the 28^th  day of  May, 2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No. 92 of 2017

Golakh Bihari Swain , S/O Late Rasananda Swain

Vill/ P.O.Pahanga  ,P.S. Jajpur Road

Dist.Jajpur                                                                         …… ……....Complainant .                                                                 .                   (Versus)

Branch Manager,Andhra Bank ,Jajpur Road Branch ,

At/P.O/PS/Jajpur Road, Dist.Jajpur

                                                                                                                              ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                                   Sri B.N.Panda, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties :                                    Sri C.S. Panda  ,Advocate .                                                                               

                                                                                                 Date of order:   28.05.2018.

SHRI  JIBAN BALLAV  DAS , PRESIDENT  .

            Deficiency in banking service is the grievance of the petitioner.

            The  petitioner filed this  case  for denial of service by the O.P  in Andhara Bank . The petitioner along with other two person namely Amulya Kar and Govinda Das working under Tata Ateel ,Kalinga nagar. The petitioner received  the wages and other social benefit vide annexture-1. After completion of work the contractor issued account payee cheque bearing No.003086 (I.C.I.C.I Bank) dt.16.02.17 amounting to Rs.5,08,000/-  with direction to distribute the said amount with other two persons each entitled to Rs.1,69,000/-. The petitioner presented the cheque before Andhra Bank on 16.02.17 which was sent for clearing on 17.02.17 and the cheque amount was debited to the account of the petitioner bearing No.027510100018936. On 21.02.17 the petitioner transferred Rs. 1,69,000/- in favour of Amulya Kar and another person Govinda Das by way of NEFT vide Qtr No.17205323875 and UTr.No.17205325115  . On 27.02.17 the petitioner withdrew Rs.2,75,000/- from the bank and deposited the same through fixed deposit in Andhra Bank . Amulya Kar and Govinda Das also deposited their amount vie Annexture-4 and 5.

On 03.06.2017 the petitioner received three registered post letter of  bank wherein it was mentioned that cheque No.003080 dt.16.02.17 of I.C.I.C.I Bank ,Duburi  branch amounting to Rs.5,08,000/- has been dis honoured and bounced due to insufficient of funds  and the said cheque has been returned to the petitioner  and no such returned cheque and memo were inside the envelop vide Annexture-6. Soon after getting the letter the petitioner met the bank authority who assured the petitioner to settle the matter. On 03.07.2017 the petitioner met the branch manager and requested to withdraw the money but the branch manager suggested for filing the case against the Bank ,the petitioner prefer I.C.C case vide F.I.R No.0281 dt.13.09.2017 U/S 294,506 I.P.C  was registered . According to the petitioner the Bank was guilty for not taking any action in the matter and also stop payment of the petitioner. Under such circumstances ,finding no other ulternative the petitioner filed this application to direct the O>P to allow the petitioner to operate  his bank  account and prayer Rs.3,75,000/-  cost of litigation.

            On the other hand in the written objection of the O.P denying the maintainability of the case  submitted that there was no cause  of action to file this case  which is baseless ,misconceived and untenable in law . It is denied that the petitioner Gobinda Das  and  Amulya Kar are partners  and acting as sub-contractor under contractor Chandeswar Singh under Tata Steel Kalinga Nagar vide Annexture-1. It is submitted that  the Annexture-1 is created for the purpose of this case. The O.P denied that the petitioner had presented the cheque bearing No.003080 dt. 16.02.17 for Rs.5,08,000/-. And directed to distribute the amount between the  petitioner with Amulya Kar and Gobinda Das giving 1,69,000/- each.It is also denied by the O.P  has returned the cheque to the petitioner  at belated stage  for which the petitioner was not able to take  legal action . It is denied that the O>p  has  never assured the petitioner to settle the matter.

            According to the O.P on 16.02.17 the petitioner presented the cheque bearing No. 003080  dt.16.02.17 before ICICI Bank  Duburi branch for rs. 5,08,000/- for withdrawal which was sent for clearing on 17.02.17 and the same was dishonoured  for insufficient fund in the account of the petitioner who has issued the cheque at Andhra Bnak ,jajpur Road there exists manual clearing system , wherein by mistake Rs.5,08,000/-  was credited to the account of the petitioner Account No.027510100018936 . On 17.02.17 the petitioner had immediately transferred of Rs.1,69,000/- each to Amulya kar and Gobinda Das vide UTR No.ANDBN17205323875 dt.21.02.2017 and UTR NO.ANDBN17205325115 dt.21.02.17. On 27.02.17 the petitioner withdraws Rs.2,75,000/- from his account and made fixed deposit at Andhra Bank ,Jajpur Road  till 27.2.17 the mistake was not detected by the O.P’s bank  since it was a manually done .  During  closing March,2017  the error was detected  and the O.P has contacted the petitioner through intervention of local gentries . The bank tried to convince  the petitioner but it did not bear fruit . On 10.04.17 the petitioner informed the O.P by regd.post No RO805550103IN about this fact. The O.P Bank also contacted other bank branches namely Baroda, Haripur branch and Canara Bank ,Jajpur Road . The Canara Bank has confirmed the petitioner withdrawn the money and bank of Baroda to return the money and was credited back to the account of the petitioner .On 29.04.17 through letter no.0275/11/227 the bank has informed the petitioner regarding  the mistake and requested the petitioner to refund the money . Thus letter was sent through regd. Post No.EO911426275IN . On 04.07.2017 the petitioner sent a letter to the O.P bank with threatened and false allegation . The petitioner has  published  false news against the bank in different news papers . The O.P  bank also checking the account of Chandeswar singh at ICICI Bank Duburi branch  where as there was no money to honour the cheque of Rs.5,08,000/- . it is further stated by the O.P that ICICI Bank Duburi branch has declined to issue an account statement . The petitioner has filed complaint case vide No.1CC 148 of 2017 in the court of JMFC, Jajpur Road against the O.P  which was sent to the local police for  investigation  and till today there was no progress in the said case. In  the mean time the petitioner also approached the banking Ombudsman ,Bhubaneswar vide Docate No.173 dt.17.07.2017 ,where the matter was rejected . Finding no other ulternative for recovery of amount the bank has marked debit freeze to the SB Account No.027510100018936 balance Rs.2,90,646/- ( Lien Rs.2,75,000/-) maturity on 27.02.2018 and Term deposit vide Account No.027520100057926 balance Rs.1,16,752/ (Lien Rs.1,09,809) maturity on 07.10.2018  total balance thus coming to Rs.5,86,106/- as on dt.07.02.2018.. Though this was the mistake committed by  the O.P Bank .

Though this was mistake committed  by the bank ,   in the written version , the O.P bank stated that there was no negligence from the side of the O.P. and the O.P bank never caused any mental agony and stress to the complainant . It is further contended that instead of taking any steps against Mr. Chandeswar Singh for dishonour of his cheque .The petitioner filed the case against the O.P Bank for deficiency of service , when there is no deficiency of service by the O.P Bank . The O>p stated that the complainant is not at all entitled to receive Rs.3,75,200/- from the O.P bank . The complainant is not entitled to get any relief  as the complainant has suppressed material facts   to make illegal gain from the bank. In the above circumstances the O.P bank  prayed to dismiss  the frivolous ,vexatious claim  as contemplated U/S 26 of C.P.Act. The written statement is supported by verification.

            On the date of hearing we heard the arguments from the learned counsels of both the parties. Perused the pleadings and documents available on record.

            On the above pleadings of the parties the following issued are framed.

1.Whether the petitioner is a consumer or not ?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief sought for in the complaint petition ?

            Both the issues are answered together. No doubt the petitioner is a consumer and had come to this Forum for deficiency of service.  As per observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1995(2) SCC-150-S.C ( Consumer Unit and Trust Society Vrs. Chairman M.D.Bank of Baroda ) CPJ-115-Vimal Ch.Grover Vrs. Bank of India )  As revealed  from the written version by the O.Ps, the petitioner presented the cheque bearing No.003080 on 16.02.17 to ICICI Bank Duburi  branch  for encashment of amount of Rs.5,08,000/-  and the said cheque was presented for clearing on 17.02.17 and the amount was credited to the account of the petitioner vide his A/C No.027510100018936 on 17.07.17. Thereafter the petitioner transferred Rs.1,69,000/- to Amulya Kar and Gobinda Das on 21.02.17.  Subsequently on 27.02.17 the petitioner withdrew the amount of Rs.2,75,000/- and made fixed deposit to Andhra Bank, Jajpur Road . So from 16.02.17 to 27.02.17 the mistake was not detected by the O.Ps.  During March’17 due to financial closing the error was detected after which the O.Ps tried to convince the petitioner and send the cheque and return memo on 10.04.17 . So from 16.02.17 till 10.04.17 the mistake of the O.P Bank was not detected, for which the innocent customer suffered a lot. .The petitioner in the present case can not be held liable. As mentioned in para-10 b of the written version finding no other alternative  for recovery of the amount the bank has marked debit freeze to the SB Account of the petitioner No.027510100018936 of Rs.1,78,708/- and kept lien the amount of Rs.2,75,000/-  as well as Rs.1,09,809/- .

            It is pertinent to mention here that ordinary people used to keep  their hard on money  in the bank . The money kept in the bank belongs to people . So the petitioner can not be held liable and was completely unaware that Chandeswar Singh had no sufficient

fund in his account to honour the cheuqe . The O.P Bank admitted their mistake  but mere admission of the mistake of the O.P bank can not absolve the  bankers from the liability nor the O.P bank is legally competent to debit , the fixed deposit  kept by the petitioner can not be held as  lien when the bank admitted that by mistake the amount of Rs.05.08,000/- was credited to the account of the petitioner. The petitioner is not at all fault in any manner .The mistake took place by the banker (O.P) . So ordinarily   who is guilty of mistake shall be liable under law and for that reason the petitioner can not be allowed  to suffer. In other words the petitioner can not made suffered for the mistake of the bank. Had the petitioner  kept the money as fixed deposit in some other nationalized Bank , then the plea of the O.P bank who have kept the money in lien would not have arise. So the money kept by the petitioner is his own money and the O.P can not keep it as lien in any manner. The O.P bank also can not deal with the said money  on its own  without permission of the petitioner .Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the money kept in S.B account and fixed deposit by the petitioner is his own money and the bank can not use it due to his own mistake .Rather the bank is advised to find fault with the banker who is responsible for clearing the cheque by mistake . And for the mistake of the bank the petitioner can not be punished .

Hence this Order

            The prayer of the petitioner is allowed for improper service by the banker. The O>p bank is directed not to deal with the money of the petitioner kept in SB account as well as in fixed deposit  in any manner without any proper instruction of the petitioner . The O.P bank is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/-(twenty thousand) to the petitioner towards litigation cost, mental agony and harassment caused to the petitioner due to no fault of the consumer within a period of one month after receipt of this order.   

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28^th  day of May ,2018. under my hand and seal of the Forum.